About your Search

20130201
20130209
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15
stood here as your new governor wisconsin was facing a $3.6 billion budget deficit. property taxes had gone up 27% over the previous decade, increasing every year and the unemployment rate was 7.8%. today wisconsin has a $34 million surplus. property taxes on median value home went down each. last two years the unemployment rate, well, it is down to 6.7%. [applause] we're turning things around. we're heading in the right direction. we're moving wisconsin forward. and unlike other states we avoided significant tax increases, massive layoffs and cuts in programs like medicaid. instead we put in place long-term structural reforms that helped us balance state and local government budgets for years to come. what we did was think more about the next generation than we did about the next election and it worked. but the first time in our state's history we set machine any aside in two consecutive years for the rainy day fund. our bond rating is solid and our pension system is the only one in the country that is fully funded. [applause] we made tough but prudent decisions to get our fiscal hous
will be gradual. and on the downside we have thrown a lot of roadblocks in its path. we have a debt and deficit situation which in the long term are unsustainable, and we're doing absolutely nothing to correct that. nothing. i know cbo's forecast was that we would see modest improvement in the jet crashing into debt-to-gdp ratio the next two years but i don't believe the. i don't like their forecast. i do with 4% growth is going to venture lies with the 0% increase in the interest rate. just don't see it happening. if you get when you're going to get the other one taking up and that will be very, very difficult to maintain a stable or declining debt-to-gdp ratio. but even cbo has a debt-to-gdp ratio picking up at the end of the 10 year horizon. so we have to stabilize the debt. we haven't fixed the debt. and, in fact, we spread the crisis out so that we really won't go a month without one. we have the fiscal cliff at the end of the year. nothing was done in the later part of the year. and then in the 11th hour, actually it wasn't the 11th hour. it was about the 15th hour, two and half hours aft
to reduce our deficit, what kind of tax plans we're going to have, how we are going to make sure that every child is getting a great education, the doctor, it is very encouraging to me that you turned out so well by your mom not letting you watch tv. i'm going to tell my daughters that. [laughter] in the midst of all these debates, we must keep that same humility that dr. king and lincoln them washington and all our great leaders understood is at the core of true leadership. in a democracy is as big and as diverse as ours, we will encounter every opinion. and our task as citizens, whether we are leaders in government or business, or spreading the word, to spend our days with open hearts and open minds, to seek out the truth that exists in an opposing view, and to find the common ground that allows for us as a nation, as a people, to take real and meaningful action. and we have to do that humbly, for no one can know the full and encompassing mind of god. and we have to do it everyday, not just at the prayer breakfast. i have to say, this is now our fifth prayer breakfast, and it is always ju
of a man, but he actually tripled the deficit and debt and expanded the size of government to or proportions, the same as george bush and republicans always blamed democrats, even though clinton and obama both have lower the deficit if you look at the treasury's website for every fiscal year. every single republican from nixon to george bush as we expanded the deficit greatly. the congress didn't change. it is just the president, but it's always blamed on congress. whenever credit given, they want all the credit, none of the responsibility. republicans will say divisive things. zero, this birth certificate or you're not american enough for denver. >> guest: three things. as a general matter, members of those party blame the other party. president obama more than any in my lifetime has landed the republican party and generally been whining or can need more excuses than any president. he seemed as if he couldn't give a speech for a while without claiming everything, including athletes foot on george w. bush. that gets tiresome after a while. but the criteria is claiming the o
and uninsured health costs. the shortfall the average savings deficit for a single female is little over $133,000. that's the additional amount a single female would on average need to save by age 65 to eliminate the shortfall. the recent economic crisis has made it even more difficult. the low contribution rates and the lack of understanding of the need for the comprehensive retirement strategy means inadequate income for the rest of your life. these issues are compounded in addition to living longer older women are likely to have costly chronic medical conditions and need longer-term institutional care. further women are likely to be single at some point in their lives which puts them at a high risk for poverty and it is an irony of the latest stage of life many women become poor for the first time in their life. today the rate of harmony for women 65 and over is close to 11%. in my testimony i have a lot more numbers but what i would like to point out is of those numbers once you get to single women almost a third and for the hispanic women it is 44% which is just the enormous. another twi
we need higher fuels tax and we can use that to reduce the deficit or for something else. the fuels tax was designed or intended whether it's done so successfully or not. was intended to pay for infrastructure. that's what we're talking about. >> absolutely. yeah. we're not happy about that. >> what are you hoping for next week? >> for some reason, i haven't been consulted on that. [laughter] the president in the campaign said he was for an all of the above energy policy. andlet have announcements that support that. let's move forward with the big decisions like keystone x l and leasing decision, five-year plan and the a things you need to do in order to accomplish the above policy. i would say that we also i would like to see stop the discussion about taxing the industry and trying to characterize the subsidizes, which is simply not true. and i'd like to see some more opportunities in terms where can with open up areas that are off limits right now. all of the combined with generate an enormous amount of opportunity for the economy when we need it. >> [inaudible] >> i'll just menti
. grappling with a record debt and deficits, threat of global warming, threat of global poverty, pandemics, of national security challenges like continuing war on terrorism, instability of iran and north korea, rising powers, turmoil across the middle east, turmoil in north africa, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the growing threat of cyber attacks. how we confront these problems, how we deal with these challenges will in many ways determine the future course of america. it will determine whether the united states will be a leader in the 21st century, or whether we will be just another failed empire in history. to succeed, we will depend on the resilience of our economy, the strength of our diplomatic and military institutions, and above all, the effectiveness of our political system. that underpins in many ways everything we do as a country. and that brings me to what i see as perhaps the most urgent task, facing this nation and facing all of us. and that is overcoming the partisan dysfunction in congress that poses a threat to our quality of life, to our national se
into deficit spending and debt, should we not at least apply some standards and some principles in terms of where and how we allocate funds that are sent to us by the taxpayer? i've asked each agency to do that. we haven't received any reports back. all we hear is from a number of voices around town, oh, no, we can't touch any of this. every dime that we spend is absolutely necessary. well, i think what senator coburn has done and begun to do and what i hope to do and also work with him and others is to identify some of those areas and literally ask the question to my colleagues and to the american people, do you think this is really an essential function of the federal government? is this something that maybe we would like to do but don't have the money to do or is this something that frankly has just not lived up to its promise, is wasting money, or is this something that never should have been passed in the first place? if we don't apply those principles to our future spending, we're going to continue down this road. now, we all know that the big three, social security, medicare and m
have a deficit. here's a project that gets substantial tax revenue without raising taxes through economic activity, through job creation. further and perhaps most importantly, it will help put our country within striking range of a long-sought goal -- true energy security. for the first time in generations, the united states with its friend and ally canada will have the capacity to produce more energy than we use, reducing or eliminating our reliance on the middle east and other volatile parts of the world. the argument has been advanced that the oil sands will increase carbon emissions and that failing to build the keystone x.l. will somehow reduce emissions. but let's look at that claim. that's the other piece. let's look at the environmental aspects of this project. today, more than 80% of all new recovery in the oil sands is being accomplished in situ, a technology that makes oil sands carbon footprint comparable to conventional drilling. in fact, the oil sands industry has reduced greenhouse gas emissions per barrel of oil produced by an average of 26% since 1990, with some
make sense whether or not we have a federal deficit. even if we have had a zero deficit. many program cuts and terminations would increase gdp and would expand individual freedom. and so the political upshot of this, and i will close on this, the clinical upshur, the fiscal conservatives always say they want to cut spending but not all of focus in recent years by fiscal conservatives in congress has been trying to impose over all restraint by putting on budget gaps, by voting for a balanced budget amendment. those sorts of cats are fine. i'm not against them but they don't reduce the underlying pressures to spend big only way to do that is to directly challenge particular programs and make the argument that particular program are harmful and wasteful, unconstitutional, unjust and unneeded. so to make lasting reform fiscal conservatives in congress need to make start making the case cost -- cuts too many programs bigger the republicans want to kill funding for big bird, for example, as candidate romney wanted to do, they got to make the case for. they got to lay out the case and push o
or not tall from the standpoint of the deficit. the second point i want to make is in line with what bob said. if you were to make a typology of a foreign policy challenges of the united states, it might go something like this. there are crises that involve the of the values and the interest and the interests but not the values and both with some overlap. we pursue our interests hopefully not the point that we are right of a moral crisis that we generate. there are certain challenges which do not seem to involve our interests very much but to bring our values and to question and the classic example of that would have been rwanda and i will get back to that in a moment and then there was a majority of foreign policy challenges. syria and given the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis, the strategic importance of the country there is no greater blow that can be dealt to iran at this moment than the fall of the assad regime from there is no greater blow that can be dealt to hezbollah are dealt to hamas the in the fall of the regime. if one wants to be a coldhearted realist and put together of th
of faith in our form of government. i call it the trust deficit. it's a little bit like the fiscal deficit, the deficit of another kind but equally corrosive when people of a sudden conclude the system doesn't work and they no longer believe in participating and engaging in the system. the system is only as good as those are willing to participate and engage so i think those are the two biggest threats on the horizon. we can read and use the system with a sense of enthusiasm and direction and energy. i have no doubt about that. and it all has to do with the amount of progress we expect out of congress and whether or not we are smart enough to put this problem solving coalition together which can achieve results. then beyond that, if we can enhance the believe devotee of congress through simple things like reorienting the schedule so as joe said more time is wasting traveling to and from your district and actually sitting in washington touring the work of the people coming and if we can do simple things like no budget, no pay if you can't create a budget of spending bills by the time certai
the deficit problem. there is no question about it. but i think when they look at this bill and understand what we are really facing, i do not believe that we will have a problem there. >> [inaudible question] [talking over each other] >> it is different great obviously, we have two different versions. the house has this attrition of the workforce that has been the component and we had a combination for every new positions, we had one and then two, and we can bind both so we are on the same page. the house proposal on the attrition and we have also added congressional papers on it as well for the civilian workforce. >> [inaudible question] >> i would certainly defer to others here and the chairman. there is a real urgency here. one of the reasons that the president and his administration during his campaign, they didn't actually want the law that requires you to notify workers that they may be laid off, essentially the department of labor says the defense employers didn't have to comply with that law, it's because they knew that once they understood the real implications of sequestration,
in mind you are objective is to get the deficit below 20% by 2015. we are on track for that. we need to pay overtime allowances for agency workers and so on on new year's. the congress and the u.s. government operate differently than government here. the strategy with enough time to achieve that. there is a constant explanation to people as to how you intend to get the. we need european support. in that sense, the united states is such a huge country. with such potential. i believe that i think the united states also needs to look at the global positioning because of the impact on the world economy. >> thank you very much. i'm sorry that we are going to have to draw this to a close. i was hoping that the irish prime minister with a a message saying that if you could only get your act together and cure these problems, it would be so much better for europe and the world. but you are way too much of a diplomat for that. [laughter] >> thank you very much. i'm sorry we cannot take more questions. it's been a fascinating session. please join me in thanking the a >> there is no prescription
.s. citizens and quite the contrary. have you thought of doing something? we have a $16 trillion deficit, we have fifty-one million people on food stamps, our culture is an entitlement culture and yet we are going after a thirteen million people with an immigration problem. eyewall for vetting them. what about reverse discrimination? we are going to demand exceptionalism we should have it towards the immigrants when they come here legally or illegally and we shall so go back to americans who are u.s. citizens. >> are you talking about expelling americans? >> i'm for the notion citizenship. [talking over each other] >> i may be extreme but here's my point. how many of you -- [talking over each other] >> how many of you have traveled to historic countries? you come back to america you have a different perspective about exceptionalism. how about reverse immigration? >> i did not support the deportation of american citizens. i would say this. if that were to be a policy, you would save hundreds of billions of dollars in the welfare state because individual immigrant, likely to use welfare especi
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15